In a number of cases, it is not clear whether a given position is an argument or rather an obligatory adjunct (for the basic criteria for distinguishing the two, see Section 2.1, "The PDT approach to valency"). If the situation is not clear, it is necessary to consider which properties are characteristic for a given modification.

If the modification is an argument:

If the modification is an obligatory adjunct:

Typical examples of obligatory adjuncts are manner and locative/directional adjuncts. Cf.:

In the cases when it is not clear whether a given modification is an argument or an adjunct that has a restricted set of possible forms, the argument interpretation is to be preferred. Cf.:

The argument - obligatory adjunct distinction is also used for distinguishing abstract meanings from the literal ones (see Section 2.3.1.1, "Literal, abstract and idiomatic meanings of verbs").

It is hard to find the borderline between the following modification types which are very similar to each other w.r.t. their semantics: i.e. the borderline between the Addressee argument (ADDR) and the Beneficiary adjunct (BEN). These two modification types seem to compete for the same position when the verb takes accusative (and possibly also dative) objects. The Addressee may have the prototypical form of the Beneficiary, i.e. the prepositional phrase pro+4.

When determining what the right valency frame for a verb potentially taking a dative object is, both the semantics of the modification and its valency status (the question whether the given modification is a valency modification) are decisive. Essentially it holds that:

!!! The modification with the BEN functor is never included in the valency frame. Establishing a clear boundary between the Addressee and Beneficiary is very problematic - it belongs to the issues left for future research.

Also the modifications with the ORIG and DIR1 functors may compete for the same position, namely if the verb subcategorizes for the Patient in accusative and may potentially have also a valency modification with the "locative/directional" meaning or the meaning of "origin" (the unifying meaning being that of source).

The issue here is that it is often hard to determine whether a given verb selects semantically for a modification with the "locative/directional" meaning (DIR1), or whether the required modification has the semantics of "origin" (ORIG). Both types of modification seem to fulfill the verb's requirements equally well.

Two surface forms are available for the given valency position: z+2 (which is typical for the modification with the DIR1 functor) and od+2 (which is typical for the Origo argument). Verbs of this type can be divided into two groups, depending on which surface forms are allowed:

In certain cases, an even more complicated situation may occur. The "source" interpretation may be brought about by modifications of three different functors and these three interpretations (meanings of the verb) are assigned three different valency frames. Cf.:

The functors ORIG and DIR1 are also used for distinguishing between abstract and literal verbal meanings (see also Section 2.3.1.1, "Literal, abstract and idiomatic meanings of verbs"), cf.:

!!! Establishing a clear borderline between the Origo and the DIR1 modification is very problematic and requires further inquiry.

When analyzing relatively numerous verbs which subcategorize for modifications with the "initial" or "final state" meaning, it is necessary to decide whether these modifications should be assigned the PAT/ORIG - EFF pair of functors or rather the DIR1 - DIR3 pair of functors.

Due to the fact that the "initial" - "final state" interpretation is often more general than the simple directional interpretation expressed by "from - to" and due to the fact that the "from - to" interpretation is sometimes not available at all, the "initial" - "final state" meaning is captured by the semantically less specific modifications, the PAT/ORIG and EFF arguments (which are usually optional). Cf.:

By using the functor pairs PAT/ORIG - EFF or DIR1 - DIR3, the abstract and literal verbal meanings are differentiated as well (see Section 2.3.1.1, "Literal, abstract and idiomatic meanings of verbs"), cf.:

The similarity in meaning between the intention modification (INTT) and certain locative/directional modifications (DIR3 or LOC) after verbs of "motion" may cause difficulties when determing whether the given modification is INTT or rather an obligatory directional/locative adjunct.

The competition between the DIR3 and INTT modifications is given by the semantics of the verbs of "motion"; these verbs have often both a literal meaning ("motion") and a modal-like meaning ("intention"). The locative/directional meaning is primary; the intention meaning is only secondary. The voluntative modality constitutes another layer in the meaning of the verb, added to the primary "motion" meaning. When determining the valency frames of these verbs, the locative/directional modification is to be preferred (over the intention modification) for both meanings of the verb (i.e. for the "motion" or "transfer" meaning as well as for the modal (intention) meaning). The INTT modification is, hence, not included in the valency frames; it is an (optional) adjunct. Cf.:

!!! However, the question is left open whether the INTT modification should be included in the valency frames in the cases where the voluntative modality is primary and the "motion" meaning is only secondary; the directional/locative adjunct would not be included in the valency frame, then; cf.:

The obligatory manner adjunct position may be taken up by modifications with different functors: MANN, CRIT, ACMP, BEN, MEANS or CPR (see Section 6, "Functors for expressing manner and its specific variants") and still the meaning of the verb remains the same (which means that its valency frame is the same as well). Cf.:

The obligatory manner adjunct position is a position that allows for alternatives. The competing modifications (the different types of manner adjuncts) are separated by the | mark in the valency frame. For every verb, the possible types of manner adjuncts are specified in its valency frame since it is not the case that all types may always compete for the position.

Examples of valency frames with the obligatory manner modification:

For the description of the way the verbs with competing manner modification are represented in the tectogrammatical trees, see Section 2.4.3.1, "Representing the valency of verbs with competing valency modifications".

!!! Modification alternatives have only been introduced for verbs. For the corresponding deverbal nouns MANN is the only option.

A very common case of competing modifications (with the meaning preservation) is the case when the Addressee and a locative or directional adjunct compete for the same position (i.e. the modification with the ADDR functor competes with the LOC or DIR3 modification; possibly also the Addressee and the DIR1 modification).

In these cases, as many valency frames are constituted as there are competing modifications; i.e. if there are three modification competing for the same position (ADDR, LOC and DIR3), the verb is assigned three different valency frames. The basic principle: one meaning - one valency frame is violated here (see also Section 2.1.5, "Relationship between the verb meanings and valency frames"). Cf.:

For the description of the way the verbs with competing modifications are represented in the tectogrammatical trees, see Section 2.4.3.1, "Representing the valency of verbs with competing valency modifications".

A number of verbs with the semantics of "placing something somewhere" (umístit (=place), zakotvit (=cast anchor), zapsat (=register/enrol)) and with the semantics of "taking up a place" or "changing the position" (usednout (=take a seat)) require either a directional adjunct (DIR3) or a locative adjunct (LOC); the choice of the modification does not necessarily influence the meaning of the verb (see Section 4.3.1, "Borderline cases with the DIR3 functor"). For example:

For the description of the way the verbs with the competing modifications are represented in the tectogrammatical trees, see Section 2.4.3.1, "Representing the valency of verbs with competing valency modifications".

Sometimes, when deriving nouns from verbs by means of the lexical derivation, the so called "role absorption" takes place. The role absorption is not a defining property of the lexical derivation, neither is it necessary for understanding a noun as a noun not referring to events or states.

The role absorption may be defined as follows: the semantics of a certain argument (or possibly an adjunct) which is part of the valency frame of the base verb is incorporated in the meaning of the derived noun. As a result, the derived noun does not have the incorporated (absorbed) argument (adjunct) in its valency frame.

The argument shifting principle does not apply in these cases (for the discussion of the argument shifting, see Section 2.1.4, "Criteria for determining the type of argument (the principle of shifting)") so that the parallel between the valency frames of the noun and its corresponding verb stayed preserved. For example, if the Actor role is absorbed, it does not mean that the Patient is to be moved to its position (if the base verb has a Patient); the Actor is simply missing from the valency frame of the noun.

Examples of lexically derived nouns with absorbed (incorporated) arguments (adjuncts):

It has turned out that the modification referring to the author of a thing (artefact), which gets the ACT functor with verbs, has various adjunct-like characteristics with nouns:

The modification referring to the author is only assigned the Actor label when it modifies a deverbal noun: name of the result of an event (i.e. when it modifies verb-like nouns; see Section 2.3.2.4.2, "Valency frames of nouns referring to the result of an event or the affected object"). When such a modification modifies a noun: name of an intellectual product, the AUTH functor is used, which was introduced exclusively for this type of modification (see Section 10.2, "AUTH"). This modification is an adjunct.

For a discussion on names of intellectual products, artefacts, see also Section 2.3.2.4.7, "Valency frames of nouns: names of intellectual products (artefacts)".

Origo is introduces as one of the five (ad)verbal arguments in Section 2.1.1, "Criteria for distinguishing between inner participants (arguments) and free modifications (adjuncts)". However, it has turned out that with a number of nouns, the ORIG modification has the properties of an adjunct:

Therefore, Origo is considered an argument only with deverbal nouns referring to events (see Section 2.3.2.4.1, "Valency frames of nouns referring to events"), possibly also with nouns referring to the affected object or the result of an event (see Section 2.3.2.4.2, "Valency frames of nouns referring to the result of an event or the affected object"). With other nouns, the ORIG modification is considered an adjunct. The nouns listed above are assigned empty valency frames, then.

!!! The nature of the ORIG modification with nouns remains an open issue. In the future, it will be probably necessary to distinguish the cases like nábytek ze dřeva (=lit. furniture from wood) from the cases like nábytek od příbuzných (=furniture from the relatives) - most likely by introducing new functors for these meanings (just like the AUTH functor was introduced next to the ACT functor which has a similar semantics; see Section 2.3.2.3.1, "Borderline between the Actor and AUTH").

The Patient is the semantically least specific argument; therefore, it is used for the semantically least specific valency modifications of nouns (non-derived nouns included). The meanings typical for adnominal modifications are captured by the APP and MAT functors; these functors are only assigned to those meanings of nouns that are clearly "nominal", non-eventive.

A valency frame that contains an APP or MAT modification should not contain any more valency modifications.

!!! It seems that for some of the meanings usually captured by the use of the PAT functor a new functor should be introduced. It concerns the following cases:

Nouns referring to events are nouns derived from verbs by means of the syntactic derivation. These are mainly verbal and event nouns. For example:

Nouns referring to events (or states) express some (sometimes all) of the meanings of their base verbs. In clear cases, the base verb is specified in the valency frames, in brackets, preceding the examples.

However, usually, nouns preserve only some of the meanings of their base verbs. Deverbal nouns referring to events have usually less different meanings than their base verbs.

!!! The valency lexicon does not contain links between the valency frames of deverbal nouns and the valency frames of their corresponding verbs so far.

All verbal and event nouns have their sempos grammateme filled with a value appropriate for semantic nouns.

!!! In the future, the t-lemma assigned to nouns referring to events or states will be identical to the t-lemma of their base verbs and the value of their sempos grammateme will be v (see also Section 1, "Syntactic and lexical derivation").

Formal changes in the valency frames of nouns (compared to the valency frames of their base verbs). Verbal and event nouns referring to events or states in principle share tne valency frames with their base verbs (as to the number, type and obligatoriness of their modifications). Only systematic changes in the surface form take place in the valency frames of these nouns; e.g.:

The list is naturally incomplete, it is only supposed to point out the basic tendencies.

Cf.:

The genitive form. There are several possible surface forms available for an argument of a noun; the genitive form (being a structural case with nouns) occupies the highest position in the hierarchy - together with the possessive adjective form. The genitive case is the usual form of the Patient argument. However, if the Patient is not present or if its form is different (e.g. if it si a prepositional phrase), the genitive position may be taken up by another argument (e.g. the Actor or Addressee). Sometimes, two different modifications can be in the genitive simultaneously (e.g. zbavení ženy.ADDR starostí.PAT (=lit. freeing woman.GEN worries.GEN); in some cases, it is due to the clumsiness of the speaker (adaptace Petra Lébla.ACT Čechovovy hry.PAT (=lit. adaptation Petr Lebl.GEN Tschekhov's play.GEN).

The prepositional phrase form. If the base verb has a modification in the form of a prepositional phrase, the form remains the same for the derived noun, too. Cf.:

The adjectival form. Valency modifications of nouns can also have the form of an adjective. This mainly concerns the modifications that have the form af an adverb when they modify verbs (LOC, DIR3, MANN). It is less usual for nouns to have their (obligatory adjunct) modifications in the form of an adverb (e.g.: příjezd domů (=(our) arrival home), pobyt zde (=(our) stay here), often, this possibility is not available at all (especially if the modification has the MANN functor) - usually, such a modification is in the form of an adjective (it is a type of syntactic derivation). Cf.:

As for optional adjuncts, the adjectival form is rather typical (e.g.: zdejší.LOC výskyt (=lit. here.adj incidence), tehdejší.TWHEN pobyt ve východní Evropě (=lit. that_time.adj stay in Eastern Europe), letošní.TWHEN příchod zimy (=lit. this_year's.adj arrival (of) winter), vysoké.EXT zatížení (=lit. high load)). See Section 2.4.3.3, "Functors assigned to the non-valency modifications of nouns referring to events".

Also arguments may have the form of an adjective, which is an alternative to the genitive form. Cf.:

!!! It is still not clear whether it is possible for an argument of a noun to have the form of a non-possessive adjective. When a possessive adjective cannot be derived from a noun (i.e. when the required possessive adjective is non-existent), it is probably legitimate to use an adjectival form (of an argument), next to the genitive form. Cf.:

However, this possibility was not taken into account (when analyzing the data). In the data, adjectival modifications are assigned the RSTR functor; possibly other functors, too: MANN (soudní.MANN rozhodnutí (=lit. court.adj decision)).

For a discussion on the functors assigned to non-valency modifications of nouns referring to events, see Section 2.4.3.3, "Functors assigned to the non-valency modifications of nouns referring to events".

!!! As for the nouns referring to events, a subsequent check on the way their valency is represented in the tectogrammatical trees took place only in the case of verbal nouns (ending with -ní or -tí). As for other types of nouns referring to events, it cannot be guaranteed that the functors were assigned to the modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Nouns referring to the result of an event or the affected object can be both derived and non-derived nouns.

Deverbal nouns referring to the result of an event or the affected object constitute one of the most problematic groups of nouns w.r.t. their valency frame constitution. These nouns are often derived from verbs by means of the lexical derivation, which often leads to the Effect or Patient absorption (see Section 2.3.2.1.1, "Role absorption"). Some examples:

A number of these nouns belong to the transitory type of nouns (see Section 2.3.2.1, "The basic approach to the valency of nouns"), for which it is often difficult to decide whether they refer to the event itself or rather to its result.

While the event use requires the valency frame parallel to the one of the corresponding verb, the result/affected object use is assigned a reduced valency frame (i.e. reduced in comparison to the valency frame of the verb). Sometimes, it is difficult to determine the extent of the reduction.

Cf.:

Creator of a product (understood as the result of an event). The creator of a product is assigned the Actor functor in the valency frame of a noun referring to the product (understood as the result of an event; the position of the creator is parallel to the one of the Actor with a verb). Notice, however, that, as for the names of intellectual products (i.e.artefacts; see Section 2.3.2.4.7, "Valency frames of nouns: names of intellectual products (artefacts)"), the creator is not considered a valency modification but rather an (optional) adjunct with the AUTH functor. Cf.:

!!! As for the nouns referring to the result of an event or the affected object, the subsequent check on the way the valency of verbal nouns is represented in the tectogrammatical trees took place only in the case of verbal nouns (ending with -ní or -tí). As for other types of nouns referring to the result of an event or the affected object, it cannot be guaranteed that the functors were assigned to the modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Agent nouns are derived from verbs by means of the lexical derivation. Examples:

As a result of the lexical derivation, the Actor absorption often takes place (see Section 2.3.2.1.1, "Role absorption"). Unlike their base verbs, agent nouns lack the Actor position in their valency frames.

Different meanings (uses) of agent nouns are distinguished by assigning them different valency frames:

!!! There was no subsequent check on whether the valency of agent nouns is represented correctly in the tectogrammatical trees. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the functors were assigned to the modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Names of places of action are usually derived nouns. Most of them are assigned an empty valency frame: hřiště (=playground, i.e. the place for playing), hvězdárna (=observatory, i.e. the place from which you can observe stars (hvězdy)), šatna (=cloackroom/changing room, i.e. the place where you change/leave your clothes (šaty)).

Deverbal nouns referring to places are nouns derived by means of the lexical derivation, which leads to the "locative" adjunct absorption (see Section 2.3.2.1.1, "Role absorption"). Lexical derivation leads to a significant reduction in the valency frame of the base verb - the derived nouns often lose all valency modifications found with their base verbs. Some deverbal nouns (referring to places) derived from transitive verbs keep the Patient position. Examples:

Cf.:

Also valency modifications of intransitive verbs may be preserved in the valency frames of deverbal nouns (referring to places). Cf.:

!!! There was no subsequent check on whether the valency of names of places of action is represented correctly. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the functors were assigned to the modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Names of instruments are usually derived nouns. Most of them are assigned an empty valency frame (and therefore are not part of the valency lexicon), e.g.: otvírák (=opener), šroubovák (=screwdriver).

Deverbal nouns referring to instruments, tools or means are nouns derived by means of the lexical derivation, which leads to the "means" adjunct absorption (see Section 2.3.2.1.1, "Role absorption"). Lexical derivation leads to a significant reduction in the valency frame of the base verb - the derived nouns often lose all valency modifications found with their base verbs. Only some deverbal names of instruments, derived from transitive verbs, keep the Patient position. Examples:

Cf.:

!!! There was no subsequent check on whether the valency of names of instruments (used for carrying out an activity) is represented correctly. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the functors were assigned to the modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Nouns referring to blood relations (and other nouns similar in meaning) are usually non-derived. Examples:

Expressing the relevant relation is considered obligatory for these nouns. The appurtenance adjunct (APP) is obligatory for this type of nouns. Srov.:

!!! The valency lexicon only contains those nouns referring to blood (family) relations that meet the relevant conditions (see Section 2.2.4, "Valency lexicon"). There was no subsequent check on whether the valency of nouns referring to blood (family) relations is represented correctly. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the APP functor was assigned to the relevant modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Names (nouns) of intellectual products are (both derived and non-derived) nouns denoting products of scientific or artistic work (in the broad sense of the word), for example:

The valency frames of nouns referring to artefacts are either empty or there is an optional Patient in the frame, which corresponds to the depicted object (topic). The author of an artefact is assigned the AUTH functor (see Section 2.3.2.3.1, "Borderline between the Actor and AUTH"). Cf.:

NB! For deverbal nouns like: tvorba (=work), publikace (=publication), stavba (=building) it is necessary to distinguish the contexts in which these nouns refer to activities from the contexts in which they refer to the results of those activities, i.e. to artefacts. These meanings are distinguished by assigning the nouns different valency frames: in the first case, the nouns are assigned valency frames that correspond to the valency frames of their base verbs; in the second case, they may have an optional Patient and the author is assigned the AUTH functor. Cf.:

NB! Names of artefacts are to be distinguished from names of the results of events (see Section 2.3.2.4.2, "Valency frames of nouns referring to the result of an event or the affected object"). The author of a product is assigned the Actor functor in the case of nouns referring to the results of events. For more details see Section 2.3.2.3.1, "Borderline between the Actor and AUTH".

!!! There was no subsequent check on whether the valency of nouns referring to artefacts is represented correctly. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the functors were assigned to the modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Nouns with the "container" meaning are usually non-derived. However, also deverbal nouns can get the "container" meaning (as a result of substantivization). Examples:

Nouns with the "container" meaning have the MAT modification in their valency frames, which is either optional or obligatory. Cf.:

!!! The valency lexicon only contains those nouns with the container meaning that meet the relevant conditions (for being included in the lexicon; see Section 2.2.4, "Valency lexicon"). There was no subsequent check on whether the valency of nouns with the container meaning is represented correctly. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the MAT functor was assigned to the relevant modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".

Nouns referring to various physical, mathematical and other properties of things or personal qualities are usually deadjectival. Examples:

The bearer of a quality or property is taken to occupy a valency position - regardless of whether the noun is deverbal or not - and is assigned either the ACT or the APP functor:

!!! The valency lexicon only contains those nouns referring to properties or qualities that meet the relevant conditions (for being included; see Section 2.2.4, "Valency lexicon"). There was no subsequent check on whether the valency of nouns referring to personal qualities and properties of things is represented correctly. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the functors were assigned to the modifications correctly. For more details see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees".